No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Portworx Enterprise vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Everpure FlashArray
Sponsored
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
232
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (3rd)
Portworx Enterprise
Average Rating
9.2
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Software Defined Storage (3rd), Data Storage for Kubernetes (1st)
Red Hat Ceph Storage
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
Software Defined Storage (SDS) (3rd), File and Object Storage (2nd)
 

Featured Reviews

Sowjanya MV - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Lead at Wipro Limited
Has improved performance for mission-critical workloads and enabled seamless non-disruptive upgrades
The availability is 99.99%, which is the main factor any customer would need because their data should be available whenever they want to access it. This is one main critical thing. It is very easy to upgrade since Pure Storage FlashArray handles it well. Everything is non-disruptive now; previously, there were forklift shifts, but now that is not the case. Pure Storage FlashArray says no to forklift upgrades. Usually hardware requires downtime, but Pure Storage FlashArray has improved their footprint so that they are not asking for downtime; everything is just a non-disruptive activity, which is why customers are more inclined towards Pure Storage FlashArray. Customers want more of the models in their environment due to the performance they are giving, and everything is in one Pure1 Array console where we can view all the models on one page or just an orchestration tool. You don't miss anything; you have replication, notifications about replication, and details about which host groups replication is happening in and if that replication is successful or failed. On a daily basis, our purpose is to create volumes for infrastructure; our daily activities include creating volumes and mapping them to the host, doing any migrations from a VM, clearing the data stores, and carving the volumes to those VMs. One key factor is the data compression with a ratio of 5:1, focusing on space efficiency, inline deduplication, and the compression Pure Storage FlashArray works on; that is a major factor we can suggest to any customer. Analytical capabilities are crucial. Daily, we check the throughput and consumption, and Pure Storage FlashArray provides predictions for one year regarding usage. This prediction helps plan updates well ahead. For support, we just raise a case, and they follow up and get it done. There is also AI readiness, but with the model R2, we don't have much of that AI readiness. For others, we do have AI readiness that predicts capacity based on daily or monthly trends, enabling us to analyze how much space we need or if we need to expand the disk shelf. From an operational point of view, a good feature is that if you accidentally delete a volume, it will be retained in the destroyed state for the next twenty-four hours, which is not the same with any other vendor. I have worked in this storage domain for the past fifteen years, and this option is remarkable, benefiting any L1 or L2 engineer. Additionally, from a compliance perspective, Pure Storage FlashArray has REST APIs enabled. I have not explored automation much, but from a security standpoint, it is strong with encryption data. If you want to automate, you can easily integrate with all clouds and explore Pure Cloud for scheduling workloads, including volume creation. Customers find benefit in Pure Storage FlashArray's single management pane of glass due to the dual controller and active-active setup. If one of the controllers goes down, all workloads automatically shift to the other controller, ensuring their data is safe and accessible at all times. This is a highlighted feature that any customer desires because their data should always be accessible. For SAN workloads, we use Pure Storage FlashArray because for SAN FC fiber channel, we don't use it; we use NetApp for NAS activities. We have clearly split this, so SAN is for mission-critical applications, while network-attached storage handles file systems. This architecture helps us maximize the benefit from Pure Storage FlashArray due to the significant workloads from this giant retail client. From a footprint and energy consumption perspective, you can see energy consumption from the Pure1 storage portal on a daily basis, and it is very compact. The three models we use consume only three units, which is quite low. From a footprint and data center perspective, it doesn't occupy much space. As everything moves to cloud, there are requirements to avoid excess spending on data centers, and Pure Storage FlashArray is efficient in energy consumption and is environmentally friendly.
Vishwanath Singh - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Engineer 3 at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Data management has become simpler and now supports flexible copies and retention decisions
The best feature is that we have integrated it with Kubernetes. When we have some servers that are going for patching or there is a hardware issue, I can replicate the data into other nodes very easily. I can use some pxctl commands and get the data replicated into other nodes which are healthy. That is the best feature. Managing the data after the initial setup is very easy in Portworx Enterprise. It is also easy to integrate with Kubernetes. We did utilize that functionality. In a disaster recovery scenario, Portworx Enterprise data recovery has been very effective. The only reason why we are moving from Portworx Enterprise to OpenEBS now is because of cost optimizations. I would classify this into two parts: my requirements and my operational efficiencies. My requirements are definitely met by Portworx Enterprise. Once my requirements were met, when I am doing any operational activity, any patching, purging, or any underlying node activities, it is easy for the operational team to manage Portworx Enterprise. They can simply give certain commands, get the underlying data transferred to other nodes, get the data cordoned, and they can take care of the underlying nodes. Portworx Enterprise has been very effective.
Rifat Rahman - PeerSpot reviewer
Infrastructure Architect & CEO at Tirzok Private Limited
Offers reliable performance and availability for large deployments
I would like to see improvements in Red Hat Ceph Storage not because I necessarily think it needs improvement, but because I generally prefer to do things manually rather than following the containerization part. Current deployments are based on containers, but I deploy manually with my scripts and controls. If there are no Kubernetes-like requirements, I often prefer to deploy a whole manual process. I don't ask for improvements in the deployment model because Red Hat has its own philosophy about making things, but it's my personal choice that I prefer things manually. Some features are available only in the containerization part, so if those are also available in manual deployment, that will help.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable features of Pure Storage FlashArray are the management view of the solutions, ease of provision, and deprovision, it is fantastic."
"The speed is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"All updates, upgrades, and hardware work are all performed on-line with no impact."
"I have seen a huge increase in speed and performance on our databases."
"The support from Pure Storage Flash Array is amazing."
"The most valuable feature of Pure Storage FlashArray is the complete set of functions it provides."
"It helps to simplify storage because it has an easy front-end to access everything."
"The first year, we started out with one or five terabytes and it took what was 20 terabytes of storage down to less than one terabyte."
"The best thing about Portworx is the Stork, they have called the VPS (Volume Replacement Strategy) and they also have topology awareness, and these are the three features I like."
"Portworx virtualizes the aspects of the underlying block storage. That is good because they can also use block storage for their future deployment instead of just NFS."
"In a disaster recovery scenario, Portworx Enterprise data recovery has been very effective."
"Stateful applications are now more resilient and less susceptible to infrastructure-related disruptions, while storage management has become more consistent with our Kubernetes practices, leading to better disaster recovery readiness and faster application deployments."
"Portworx is a simple solution. It's similar to Pure Storage products. They're all easy to use and install. You need to have a little expertise with containers to use Portworx, but it will be no problem for you if you understand containers."
"The solution is user-friendly."
"A custom IBM script is designed to tackle the storage management challenges within containerized environments, providing crucial data services and features required for enterprise applications."
"We are offering two kinds of environments: one for customers working with modern data and modern application development, and they are finding that it is easier for them to migrate workloads from on-premises to cloud or the other way around."
"Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud."
"Data redundancy is a key feature, since it can survive failures (disks/servers) and we didn’t lose our data or have a service interruption during server or disk failures."
"radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."
"The scalability feature is used by all users and is critical for our operations."
"Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment."
"I would definitely recommend Red Hat Ceph Storage. It is a complete solution for cloud-native storage needs."
"Ceph Storage allows us to add value related to cost and offers a unique experience compared to traditional storage."
 

Cons

"The solution could improve by having a multi-tenant feature."
"Its price could be cheaper. It is not the cheapest one out there, but I'm not directly involved in the figures and negotiations."
"There are many features which need to be added, particularly on the replication side."
"The difference in pricing could become a problem for Pure because the commoditization of the solutions could lead to a different price being a problem."
"I would like to see the NAS add-on component become more fault-tolerant than just a single virtual machine running inside the array. I'm unwilling to use it for that reason."
"Price per terabyte is substantially higher than their competition. We would like to see it drop."
"It is a bit expensive."
"Pure Storage support could be a little better."
"They have not integrated Portworx with Ondat since they are too focused now on Pure Storage APIs and not on users like us."
"I would like to see a more native mapping to mainframe-type systems."
"The integration has room for improvement."
"As far as I know, Portworx Enterprise was a bit expensive when compared to OpenEBS."
"I think the vendor could provide more training for new users who may not be familiar with containers."
"It would be highly advantageous to include an integrated backup solution within the same license, rather than purchasing backup separately."
"Regarding pricing, I found that a couple of customers did not purchase the project because, at least in Spain, there are customers finding the pricing a little too high for the service they receive."
"The documentation could be better."
"Routing around slow hardware."
"Ceph Storage lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication. That is a huge loss in terms of performance."
"It took me a long time to get the storage drivers for the communication with Kubernetes up and running. The documentation could improve it is lacking information. I'm not sure if this is a Ceph problem or if Ceph should address this, but it was something I ran into. Additionally, there is a performance issue I am having that I am looking into, but overall I am satisfied with the performance."
"It needs a better UI for easier installation and management."
"I would like to see better performance and stability when Ceph is in recovery."
"I have not identified any drawbacks, however, the response to public platform inquiries could be faster."
"When it comes to the capabilities of Red Hat Ceph Storage such as object, block, and file storage, I am not fully satisfied."
"It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There is an annual or perpetual license required for this solution."
"The solution is expensive."
"It's priced higher than the market."
"Pricing is moderate. It is neither cheap nor expensive."
"We do not incur additional costs beyond the licensing fee."
"It's a good price point and it's a solid product for the price."
"There are no licensing fees or other costs."
"I would prefer that they lower their pricing."
"I'm not sure how the licensing was broken out, but I don't think our offering of the Portworx was more than USD $20,000."
"The price of Portworx Enterprise is high."
"It has two offerings. One is free, which is limited to only five nodes. The other is enterprise, which is a bit pricier."
"The price is competitive, but it is too expensive when paired with Red Hat IBM."
"We never used the paid support."
"If you can afford a product like Red Hat Ceph Storage then go for it. If you cannot, then you need to test Ceph and get your hands dirty."
"The other big advantage is that Ceph is free software. Compared to traditional SAN based storage, it is very economical."
"The operational overhead is higher compared to Azure because we own the hardware."
"There is no cost for software."
"The price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten."
"The price of this product isn't high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Defined Storage (SDS) solutions are best for your needs.
915,287 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Construction Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
26%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
8%
Outsourcing Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business73
Midsize Enterprise38
Large Enterprise160
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise15
 

Questions from the Community

Which should I choose: HPE 3PAR StoreServ or Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform F Series?
Both are great platforms, but if you are considering all flash solutions, I would recommend you to consider Pure Stor...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Pure Storage FlashArray?
I find the pricing of Everpure FlashArray to be quite high compared to other storage solutions; however, the reliabil...
What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashArray?
I believe we have covered the most important features; the architecture of Pure Storage is essential, and features su...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Portworx Enterprise?
Pricing is good as the functionalities of Portworx Enterprise are explainable. Pricing is bearable, but licensing is ...
What needs improvement with Portworx Enterprise?
The only reason why we are moving from Portworx Enterprise to OpenEBS now is because of cost optimizations.
What advice do you have for others considering Portworx Enterprise?
I have so much experience in Dynatrace and also I have experience in Grafana and in Kubernetes. Kubernetes is the las...
How does Red Hat Ceph Storage compare with MiniO?
Red Hat Ceph does well in simplifying storage integration by replacing the need for numerous storage solutions. This ...
What needs improvement with Red Hat Ceph Storage?
Areas of Red Hat Ceph Storage that have room for improvement include more promotion. Many people do not know about th...
What advice do you have for others considering Red Hat Ceph Storage?
I do not have experience working with solutions such as Red Hat Ceph Storage and StorPool. I have plenty of experienc...
 

Also Known As

Pure Storage FlashArray
No data available
Ceph
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Nielsen, Lamar Advertising, LinkedIn, Betfair, UT-Dallas
NIO, GE Digital, DreamWorks Animation, Lufthansa, beco, NEW CONTEXT
Dell, DreamHost
Find out what your peers are saying about StarWind, Nutanix, Red Hat and others in Software Defined Storage (SDS). Updated: August 2026.
915,287 professionals have used our research since 2012.